Winning back Catholics (VOTF warning)

[buffalo]

Pentecost2005:

1. What is the point of “changing the teaching”? What value is membership in the Church if the Church is going to betray Christ? (And anyway, what if a lot of people don’t like the NEW “teaching”? What then? Do we change it again, to “include” them?)

They already belong to the church of changing teachings. The church of moral relativism. I don"t see why they are so bent on trying to incorporate moral relativism into the Church. Do they think if they succeed it justifies them and they go to heaven when they die because they were successful? It’s not logical.

 

[4_marks]

AuntMartha:

The trouble is though - is the only way to reach out to disaffected Catholics to change some of the basic tenets of the church? For example, Is the only way to reach Catholic women who have fallen away to allow women priests or allow abortions?

I think that the majority of people who have left the Catholic Church are people who just fell away from faith in general. The Church would have a better chance of reaching these people by ministering to their souls, not by changing the rules.

If the Church keeps changing to meet the demands of an always changing society, what will it become?

Aunt Martha

I agree with what you have expressed. However, it has been my experience that a reasonably large portion of clergy, religious and active laypersons in parishes, have a different view on the matter.
For instance, this week, the music director in our parish, selected a song written by a religious sister with lyrics that call for the “ministerial equity between men and women” and call Catholics to “celebrate diversity” in their “communities of faith.” Our pastor heard it, and now wants it to be sung at all Masses so that the congregation gets familiarized with the message which he said was “beautiful” and reflects where the Catholic faithful “should be headed.”

Our parish has not been able to reach its financial goals and parishoners are constantly being scolded for failing to give as they ought because of “personal reasons.” Those personal reasons have a great deal to do with a former pastor who was removed from his post for engaging in sexual activity with a man over the age of 18. Rumours are circulating among the parishoners that our parish is going to close it’s doors.

Who knows?

 

[pittsburghjeff]

The politcal comunist in our secular liberal newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, made a great point today in talking about such dissenters suggestions to draw people back":
*
"Perhaps they have in mind the explosive growth of the Episcopal church in the United States. In 1966, there were a mere 3.65 million Episcopalians in the United States. But after four decades of liberalization, culminating in the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, membership is now a robust 2.32 million.

You could fire a cannon through most Episcopal churches without fear of hitting a worshipper, and membership is likely to dwindle further. Bishops in Africa and Latin America, the only places where the Episcopal church is growing, want to disassociate themselves from bishops in North America, whom they consider heretics. There’s a split in the American church, with some congregations looking to secede. If this is success, I wonder what failure looks like.*

The column is worth a read
postgazette.com/pg/05114/493019.stm

 

[Lisa_N]

pittsburghjeff:

The politcal comunist in our secular liberal newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, made a great point today in talking about such dissenters suggestions to draw people back":

"Perhaps they have in mind the explosive growth of the Episcopal church in the United States. In 1966, there were a mere 3.65 million Episcopalians in the United States. But after four decades of liberalization, culminating in the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, membership is now a robust 2.32 million.

You could fire a cannon through most Episcopal churches without fear of hitting a worshipper, and membership is likely to dwindle further. Bishops in Africa and Latin America, the only places where the Episcopal church is growing, want to disassociate themselves from bishops in North America, whom they consider heretics. There’s a split in the American church, with some congregations looking to secede. If this is success, I wonder what failure looks like.

The column is worth a read
postgazette.com/pg/05114/493019.stm

First this is a GREAT column! I am printing it off to keep with my very carefully selected clippings file. I particularly loved that the writer pointed out that the dissenters have about as much impact on the Church as Dennis Kuchinch has on the Democrat party but because the JOURNALISTS happen to agree with both dissenters and Dennis, they get a lot more ink than is deserved.

The comment about the Episcopal church is right on the mark even in this liberal town. The larger ‘wealthy’ church has lost a lot of its members, contributions have dropped like a rock and they have cancelled a number of very popular programs due to lack of funding. I really like some of my friends who attend there. It’s a nice group. But their church is lost and desperately needs to find its way. One hint, one man’s genital activity does not need to be the most important consideration in the life of the Church. I am stunned at the absolute hubris of Mr Robinson whose desires to live a deviant lifestyle are more important than his flock. Some shepherd, why doesn’t he just call the wolves in for a feast?

Lisa N

 

[iserve]

Jeff, that was a great article. Certainly, this election of Mr. Robinson is a huge mistake, might as well stay home if any ONE of us thinks they know it all. God cannot help another god!
In reponse to the poster who pointed out the argument between Peter and Paul, these were differnces in rituals, not doctrines. In fact, the agreement upon doctrine was what allowed the argument to fall in favor of the gentiles, for whom Christianity (which did not require circumcision) was their only reference. Love for the truth was
what solved that argument, not compromises on it.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I wasn’t sure I understood your options on the vote, but I will comment.

You are correct that Truth is Truth and thank you for standing up and pointing that out that day - maybe someone in the audience took it to heart even though it may not have been apparent.

Jesus said the path was narrow, not wide. Jesus was a model of simplicity, not complexity.

People want to widen the path in order to suit their desires. This enables them to believe they are following Jesus, all the while they are only following themselves.

Jesus wanted us to become like children. One does not need to be a scholar to understand His messages. One does require an obedient heart and mind. This means understanding is not a requirement.

God so loved us, he instituted a Church through His Son so that we would not be left out wandering. If faith and morality were truly up to each individual conscience everyone would go in different directions unless there were something intended to form that conscience.

The teachings, as held in the deposit of faith, are the very thing we are to submit our hearts and minds to so that our consciences may be formed according to the will of the Lord.

 

[cheddarsox]

I am a former Catholic, and I wouldn’t return if/because the church “lightened up”, if the church has the truth, then it should stick by it no matter what, that is its duty, not to woo me or anyone else back to the flock.

If it is the truth, then perhaps I will recognize it and return, but I would lose any respect I have for the church (and I do respect it) if it changed to suit the whims of those who weren’t even a part of it.

Viva la difference! I hope Catholicism stays true to itself. If others don’t like it, there are options for them.

cheddar

 

[byzmelkite]

Here’s the easy way to win back those Catholics who, in God’s providence, will be brought back. Tell them, “Come back to the Church or burn in hell.”